The District Manager Ap State Civil ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 43/2013 dated 22/11/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Guntur]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE Mr. B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

The District Manager AP State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Kurnool PO, Kurnool Dist. Andhra Pradesh Appellant(s)

Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Tirupati 9/86-A, Behind West Church Compound, Amaravathi Nagar, M.R. Palli  517 502 Andhra Pradesh Respondent(s)

Appearance:

None For the Appellant

Mr. A.K. Nigam, AR For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 20/03/2015 Date of Decision: 20/03/2015 CORAM:

HON'BLE Mr. B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20806 / 2015

Per: B.S.V. MURTHY

An amount of Rs. 3,14,498/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Eight only) has been demanded as service tax on GTA Service received by the appellant. Interest has been demanded under Section 75 and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act 1994 has been imposed.

2. Nobody is present on behalf of the appellant. However the report has been received stating that appeal may be decided on merits on the basis of grounds raised in the appeal memorandum.

3. Heard the learned AR. He submits that Commissioner (Appeals) observed that no evidence has been produced to support the claim that the GTA Service received by them were not covered by the service because the amount paid would less than Rs. 750/- (Rupees Seven Hundred and Fifty only) or Rs. 1500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only). Further there was no evidence to support the claim that the difference arise because of the procedure adopted for preparation of Balance Sheet and the filing of ST-3 Returns which are basically different.

4. I have gone through the grounds of appeal submitted by the appellant. In this case even before me there is no evidence to show that the invoices received in respect of GTA Service or consignment was less than Rs. 750/- (Rupees Seven Hundred and Fifty only) or Rs. 1500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only). No evidence or documents have been produced to support this claim. While a claim is made that there is a difference between Balance Sheet and ST-3 Returns because of the method adopted and even the amount had not been quantified. The appellants have not produced any evidence before me also. In such a situation, it is not possible to provide any relief to the appellants. Accordingly the impugned order is upheld and appeal is rejected.

(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)

(B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER

iss